UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
A novel dataset on horizontal property rights in 126 jurisdictions
Dari-Mattiacci, G.; Guerriero, C.
DOI
10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.005
Publication date
2017
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Data in Brief
License
CC BY
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Dari-Mattiacci, G., & Guerriero, C. (2017). A novel dataset on horizontal property rights in 126
jurisdictions. Data in Brief, 11, 557-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.005
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
Data Article
A novel dataset on horizontal property rights
in 126 jurisdictions
Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci
a, Carmine Guerriero
b,n aUniversity of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
bUniversity of Bologna, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 October 2016 Received in revised form 20 February 2017 Accepted 3 March 2017 Available online 12 March 2017 Keywords: Comparative variation Property rights Markets Private takings Predation
a b s t r a c t
The law and the economy are deeply influenced by horizontal property rights, which are the rules regulating legal direct and indirect takings between private parties. To foster research on the determinants and impact of these institutions, we illustrate here a novel data set partially employed in (Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe, Carmine Guerriero, 2015; Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe, Carmine Guerriero, Zhenxing Huang, 2016)[3,4], and (Guerriero Carmine, 2016) [6] and describing the acquisition of ownership through adverse possession of personal and real property and the use of government takings to transfer real property from a private party to another private party in 126 jurisdictions. These data are based on the laws and judicial decisions prevailing in each jurisdiction between 1981 and 2011.
& 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Specifications Table Subject area Economics. More specific
subject area
Law and Economics; Institutional Economics. Type of data Excel.
Contents lists available atScienceDirect
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/dib
Data in Brief
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.005
2352-3409/& 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
nCorresponding author.
E-mail addresses:G.DariMattiacci@uva.nl(G. Dari-Mattiacci),c.guerriero@unibo.it(C. Guerriero).
How data was acquired
By extracting from questionnaires drafted by experts the rules on the acquisition of ownership through adverse possession and on government takings.
Data format Raw. Experimental
factors
The sample has been selected based on the availability of the contributors. Experimental
features
Property rights are measured through indicators grounded on the laws and judicial decisions prevailing in 126 jurisdictions between 1981 and 2011. Data source
location
126 jurisdictions. Data accessibility Data are with this article.
Value of the data
The data can help understand the origins and impact of horizontal property rights. Since the private-taking-based measures of property rights we illustrate do not correlate with the most used predation-based proxies for property rights (see [6]), further research on the links among horizontal property rights, vertical property rights, and the economy is welcome. The data are key to draw policy implications relevant for the current process of international legalharmonization.
1. Data
The data set, which is reported in the“HPR_W” excel file, consists of cross-sectional observations on thirteen measures of horizontal property rights. These legal rules determine the protection of private property from private takings. These are omnipresent forms of legal expropriation, and therefore they are substantially different from predation by the state and powerful elites.1
2. Experimental design, materials and methods
We constructed each measure as follows[3,4,6]. First, we sent questionnaires to members of the lawfirms part of the international networks Lex Mundi and HG.org, participants in the World Bank doing business project, and legal scholars asking information on horizontal property rights in their jurisdiction. These contributors, whose names and affiliations are listed in the Internet appendix of [6],2 based their answers on the laws and judicial decisions prevailing between 1981 and 2011. Second, we extracted from these answers discrete variables assuming values higher the higher is the protection afforded to the original owner of personal or real property—i.e., “movable” or “immovable” goods in civil law parlance, vis-à-vis a good-faith possessor or a good-faith buyer from a dishonest intermediary. Because there was no relevant reform, the data take the form of a cross section of 126 jurisdictions (seeTable 1).
When transaction costs are sizable, private parties are often allowed to take property with or without paying compensation to the original owner (Bouckaert and De Geest[2]). Two are the main instances in which this legal private expropriation takes place, a direct one—known as adverse possession—and an indirect one, i.e., government takings. Next, we illustrate our proxies for each (Table 2).
1This form of expropriation is shaped instead by vertical property rights and, albeit much less common, has been the focus
of the extant social science literature[1].
2
This is available athttps://sites.google.com/site/carmineguerrieroshomepage/home/research-1. G. Dari-Mattiacci, C. Guerriero / Data in Brief 11 (2017) 557–561 558
2.1. Direct private takings: Adverse possession
Adverse possession is the acquisition of property rights by a possessor by virtue of the passing of time and recurring other conditions such as continuous, notorious, and open possession. Through adverse possession then, property can be effectively transferred without the original owner's consent. 2.1.1. Personal property
Different jurisdictions weigh differently the interests of the original owner and the possessor. In the United States for instance, a good-faith possessor of a movable good cannot acquire ownership of the good through adverse possession, whereas she/he does so after 10 years in Germany and 3 years in France. Hence, an original owner is protected increasingly more in France, Germany, and the United States, and a natural metrics of her/his property rights on a movable good is the number of years after which a good-faith possessor of the good acquires ownership or thirty, which is the maximum length of adverse possession in the sample, if she/he cannot acquire property rights, i.e., Adverse-Possession-M-GF. We develop in a similar way other ten variables assuming higher values the higher is the relative protection afforded to the original owner vis-à-vis the good-faith possessor/buyer of a movable good.
The first one is the number of years after which the proprietary remedies of the owner of a movable good expire, i.e., Remedy-M. A second set of variables refers to the purchase of a stolen movable good. These indicators gauge indeed the number of years after which the buyer acquires ownership of a stolen movable purchased within either a private sale, public market, and an auction or from a professional seller, i.e., respectively Property-Private-Sale-SM, Property-Public-Market-SM, Property-Auction-SM, and Property-Professional-Seller-SM. A third set of variables deals which the purchase of a movable good that was embezzled, i.e., withheld by someone to whom it was entrusted to be held or used for specific purposes. These indicators gauge indeed the number of years after which the buyer acquires ownership of an embezzled movable purchased within either a private sale, public market, and an auction or from a professional seller, i.e., respectively Property-Private-Sale-EM, Property-Public-Market-EM, Property-Auction-EM, and Property-Professional-Seller-EM. Finally, the dummy Good-Faith-M equals 0 when the good faith is presumed. Clearly, the mere presumption protects more the buyer.
2.1.2. Real property
The transfer of real property is more complex since it requires registration, which has an asym-metric impact across jurisdictions depending on the extent of enforceability against third parties (Bouckaert and De Geest[2]). Accordingly, we focus on the case emphasizing the most the adverse possessor's claim. To illustrate, we study the conflict between a good-faith possessor without title of an immovable good and a third party buying the good from the original owner after the term for adverse possession is expired, and we maintain that the good is registered if this step is necessary to acquire property via adverse possession. Then, our proxy for horizontal property rights on immovable
Table 1
List of Jurisdictions.
Albania; Angola; Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belarus; Belgium; Belize; Bolivia; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cameroon; Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cóte d'Ivoire; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Estonia; Ethiopia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Great Britain; Greece; Guatemala; Honduras; Hong Kong; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Iran; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Kosovo; Kuwait; Kyrgyz Republic; Latvia; Lesotho; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia; Malaysia; Mali; Malta; Mauritius; Mexico; Moldova; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Netherlands; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; Northern Ireland; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Romania; Russia; Rwanda; Saudi Arabia; Scotland; Senegal; Serbia; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Slovak Republic; Slovenia; South Africa; South Korea; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sweden; Switzerland; Syria; Taiwan; Tanzania; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Turkey; Uganda; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United States; Uruguay; Venezuela; Vietnam; Zaire; Zambia; Zimbabwe.
Table 2
Summary of Variables.
Variables Definition and sources Summary statistics
Adverse-Possession-M-GF: Time limit for adverse possession of a movable good by any good-faith possessor in years. 11.306 (11.890) [126] Remedy-M: Number of years after which the proprietary remedies of the owner of a movable good expire. 15.341 (12.538) [126] Property-Private-Sale-SM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of a stolen movable good
purchased within a private sale.
12.056 (12.765) [126] Property-Public-Market-SM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of a stolen movable good
purchased within a public market.
10.119 (12.332) [126] Property-Auction-SM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of a stolen movable good
purchased within an auction sale.
7.968 (11.496) [126] Property-Professional-Seller-SM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of a stolen movable good
purchased from a professional seller.
9.159 (11.911) [126] Property-Private-Sale-EM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of an embezzled movable good
purchased within a private sale.
7.782 (11.877) [126] Property-Public-Market-EM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of an embezzled movable good
purchased within a public market.
6.766 (11.267) [126] Property-Auction-EM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of an embezzled movable good
purchased within an auction sale.
5.790 (10.506) [126] Property-Professional-Seller-EM: Number of years after which the good-faith buyer definitively acquires property of an embezzled movable good
purchased from a professional seller.
5.869 (10.475) [126] Good-faith-M: Dummy equal to 0 when good-faith is presumed and 1 otherwise. 0.238 (0. 428) [126] Adverse-Possession-I-GF: Number of years necessary for adverse possession of an immovable good with good-faith but without title if the
adverse possessor prevails against a good-faith buyer from the original owner and/or registration is compulsory for adverse possession; thirty otherwise.
24.573 (8.082) [89]
Government-Takings: Dummy equal to 1 if the state can take real property from a private party only for public use, 0 otherwise. 0.716 (0. 454) [88]
G. Dari-Mattiacci, C. Guerriero / Data in Brief 11 (20 17 ) 5 5 7– 56 1 560
goods is Adverse-Possession-I-GF, which is defined as the number of years necessary for adverse possession of an immovable good with good-faith but without title if the adverse possessor prevails against a good-faith buyer from the original owner and/or registration is compulsory for adverse possession and thirty otherwise. When the good-faith possessor prevails, the legal protection of the original owner is weaker.
2.2. Indirect private takings: Government takings
Private takings can also be mediated by the state, which can always, under the power of eminent domain, seize private real property for ``public interest” and upon paying a “just” compensation[5]. What constitutes public interest however differs among different jurisdictions. With this remark in mind, we consider the dummy Government-Takings, which equals 1 if the state can take real property from a private party only for public use. Whenever Government-Takings is instead zero, the state can use government takings to transfer property from a private party to another for private for-profit use and so favor a subgroup of the population to the detriment of another.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Anghel Negriu and Sander Verrips for excellent research assistance, Arthur Salomons for the help in drafting the questionnaire, and the contributors for their reports.
Transparency document. Supplementary material
Transparency data associated with this article can be found in the online version athttp://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.005.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version athttp://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.03.005.
References
[1]Timothy Besley, Maitreesh Ghatak, Property Rights and Economic Development (Vol.), in: V. Mark Rosenzweig, Dani Rodrik (Eds.), Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2010.
[2]Boudewijn Bouckeart, Gerrit De Geest, Private takings, private taxes and private compulsory services: the economic doc-trine of quasi contracts, Int. Rev. Law Econ. 15 (1995) 463–487.
[3]Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, Carmine Guerriero, Law and culture: a theory of comparative variation in bonafide purchase rules, Oxf. J. Leg. Stud. 35 (2015) 543–574.
[4]Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci, Carmine Guerriero, Zhenxing Huang, The property-contract balance, J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 172 (2016) 40–64.
[5]William A. Fischel, Regulatory Takings: law, Economics, and Politics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995. [6]Carmine Guerriero, Endogenous property rights, J. Law Econ. 59 (2016) 313–358.
